6 Comments

  1. Evan

    Rent control is nuts. The guy who moved out before I moved was paying $1600 for a 3bd with view, 2ba, 2 car garage and much more. That’s crazy cheap. And this guy thinks that when someone moves out, they shouldn’t be able to charge market rate? How is it fair for me to continue paying 1986 prices for an apartment in 2010? That just causes less money to go into landlords hands, diminishing their ability to make improvements or buy/build more places.

  2. marco

    Rent control as it is does not make sense. It does not assist poor, economically need tenants. It only assists long term tenants. So poor new tenants get no assistance. And rich long term tenants get subsidized rent. Clearly the most fair type of rent control would be one like the telephone or PG&E subsidies, which offer discounts to low income tenants. The current systems penalizes only certain property owners who have the bad luck to have long term tenants. The current rent control system gives property owners an incentive to displace low income tenants or take that housing off the rental market; it provides a dis-incentive to properly maintain a property; and it does not even necessarily help maintain a diversity of low/middle/high income residents, because there is no way for new low income residents to find affordable housing in the city.

  3. Evan

    Totally, 100% agree with Marco. Rent control helps out the wrong people — people who’ve lived in a place for a long time, no matter their income. If I make $30k/yr, and the tenant above me makes $130k/yr, why should he pay half the rent I do for the exact same unit, just because he’s been there for 15 years? It makes no sense.

    Subsidize people who actually need the help. Rent control just dampens supply and rewards people who stay around for a long time, regardless of whether they need the help.

  4. We live in a capitalist country. Hence, whether we like it or not, the market usually sets the prices. Of course, the government tries its best to, at times, tinker with the market to make people’s lives easier. Sometimes, this works and other times it is a disaster.

    Rent control is a mix of the two. In the short-term, rent control can be great because it helps people plan their expenses. Students who know that they are going to be in one place for 4 years can figure out the rent 4 years in the future under rent control. But when you look at long-term, rent control is a fiasco. Which landlord wants to continue having a happy tenant when the tenant is paying half or even a quarter of the rent that a new tenant can bring?

    Of course, thanks to Prop 13, the long-term property owners have their own tax control. Maybe San Francisco can offer this escape to landlords – pay current rate property taxes and you can get your property out of rent control…

  5. tman

    Well if think about it, let see, if I purchased a building 20 years ago, with say 4 units, a the very least, the morgage was being payed, n the place could posibly be payed for, not all fit this, but come on, you know what ur getting if buy an apartment building n sf

  6. charles

    I find it amazing that the head of the Apartment Owners Assoc says that the government should provide rent subsidies, more affordable housing and public housing. Only they forgot to tell us that we the public tax payer will be paying to house these folks on our dime and they make what ever profit they can – in effect our increased tases to solve housing is subsidizing their profit.

    Regardless of what you think the property owners rights are versus the tenants, as long as the market place is un-regulated and some investors manipulate the situation to maiximize their profit at the expense of the rest us us, cost of housing will continue to rise. For all those who are upset because they are paying market price under rent control and long term tenants are paying a controlled price think of the following:
    (1) If market rents were un-controlled would your rent go up or down or remain the same. (SF has limited amount of land and housing and a high demand for housing – and clearly there are lots of people who can afford to pay higher rents – this will bid up median rent level) Under this condition would you be paying more or less than you are now?
    (2) De-regulation created the financial melt down. Is this a good thing? Everyone lost value in the meltdown – so who walked away with the money?
    (3) There is a value to long term stable communities where neighbors know one another; businesses are run by ordinary folk like themselfves and their is a sense of community. People (mostly the down side of 40+) are more transportable in their lives. Their community is based on the folks they hangout with, their common interests, their professional orientation, etc. They want stability in the group not the community – how many of the renters really know the majority of their neighbors? How many have been to a community meeting in their neighborhood? How many even hangout and identify with the neighborhood in which they live. Example, many new commers now call the Mission – the “Mish”. Do new comers really get to know the neighborhoods they move into? Do they know who they displaced? Do they care? Do they really live in the neighborhood or do they just “consumne it” like another experience?
    (4) In my neighborhood, Bernal Heights, I know of houses that sold for $12,000 in the early 1970′s, now those same building are selling for $700,000. The impact of escalating values impacts new tenants by driving up rents and it also increases tax revenue since property is taxed at 1% of it acqusition value. People who have owned property for 30 years, pay very little propertys taxes. I know of people who $700.00 in property taxes and I also know people who pay $7,000.00 in property taxes every year. So if the rental that someone new can pay on an apartment is more than someone who has lived there for a long time; the owner is likely to try to figure every trick in the book to get him or her to leave so they can charge a new renter the going rate. How does that impact the neighborhood? And if rental unit owners feel that it is not their responsibility to provide housing to the un-employed, the elderly and low income tenants, why should I as a tax payer have to pick up the bill in the form of higher taxes? Why should I subsidize other’s profit?

    So this is a bright group, what is your solution?

Comments are closed.